Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[david_ruiz]

Well, i agree that the Apostles were all given the power to “bind and loose”. Which is exactly why any priest today is also given the power to “bind and loose” and may forgive sins. But i’d have to say i disagree that they were all given the keys, because the only time the keys were mentioned was when Jesus gave them to Peter.

Interesting to hear that LDS follows the same consept though, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

yet whatever Peter did ,all the other apostles did also ,not to mention consequent believers us.Right ? ALL COMMISSIONS WERE TO THE TWELVE.

 

[david_ruiz]

yet whatever Peter did ,all the other apostles did also ,not to mention consequent believers us.Right ? ALL COMMISSIONS WERE TO THE TWELVE.

What the keys did (bind and loose) the others could do also,it is just that Peter was the first to use them (first sermon). It is foolish to say a believer does NOT have the keys to the kingdom.When you share the gospel ,the listener is now bound to be judged with what you told him/her.

 

[david_ruiz]

What the keys did (bind and loose) the others could do also,it is just that Peter was the first to use them (first sermon). It is foolish to say a believer does NOT have the keys to the kingdom.When you share the gospel ,the listener is now bound to be judged with what you told him/her.

Her is what clinches it for me: Twice after Peter being made pope by Jesus (supposedly) ,in front of all the apostles, they argue as to who would be greater and have better position. Paul also chides Peter as an equal and certainly not as if Peter were pope. Fourthly ,at the first council ,no indication is given to Peter’s popery.He did not call for or head the council. Nor did He make the pronoucement or decsion(James did) He definitely was the key witness. Fifthly, there is no other scriptures to show preeminence of Peter -revelations given equal positon of the twelve as foundation.Sixth- The earliest list of Rome’s bishops list Peter and Paul as equal martyrs of Rome Seventh ,ther is no specific biblical evidence of succession .Today it is big news when there is a new pope , yet we have not a peep in the bible of such transference from Peter.The ealiest lists of rome’s bishops was not to prove popery ,but that holy men were made bishops to venerate and care for the sanctity of the gospel message.It was not till later that these lists were used to put Rome above Antioch ,Jerusalem etc.

 

[awatkins69]

It doesn’t matter what language Jesus used. The Gospel we have was translated from Greek. There is no indication that it was ever translated from Aramaic. The FACT is that Matthew CHOSE to use two words for rock in Matt.16:18. If he was concerned about being faithful to Aramaic he would have only used one. He did not and the reason is obvious. He wanted to differentiate between Peter, the rolling stone, petros and Jesus the Rock of Ages, petra.

First off, we know Peter was named “kephas” from multiple places in the NT. But little stone in Aramaic is “evna”. In biblical Greek it is “lithos.” In the dialect of Greek of NT times, “petros” and “petra” generally mean the exact same thing, just different genders. Also may find this interesting, since it actually doesn’t just repeat this same argument about the Greek over and over: calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-two-rocks-of-matthew-1618-in-the-syriac-peshitta/

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

-Revisionist Jews describes early Christians, many of whom remained connected with the Temple in the first 80 or so years. Not all of them but a good number of them. I don’t think they have or are known by any particular formal name. Point was that they existed. Gnostics were indeed hunted down, as have numberless others through the course of history. Very unlike the ways of the Christ I know.

What is asserted without reason can be rejected without reason.

Proof please.

I don’t belong to any church, but I do belong to God. My temple is in my heart and therefore every place I walk is a house of worship. My relationship with Him works just fine for Him and I. Every breath I take, and every thing that I do has been given completely to God, and is offered up to Him anew each day. Whether each outcome is good, or if some are bad, they are done in the service of Him, therefore my life serves to glorify Him in every regard. He is in me and around me all the time. I feel Him and am enmeshed in the effulgence of His being. For me, the attainment of heaven is not a far off promise, but a reality. I have no fear, because I know Him.

While this sort of subjectivism may sound nice it really doesn’t say anything. You have made a “god” out of your feelings. That is one of the essential flaws of religious subjectivism-it denies error.

That you “feel” that you know Him says nothing to me about God or Truth. You have subjective certitude; a “feeling” of certainty. “I itch” is not the same as “I know”.

Your view seems very much to be based on law, protocol, ritual and procedure, with what I see as a rather harsh flair. I do what He wants not out of fear or because they are law, but because I love Him and He loves me. To me that is proper love of God. I see Him differently than you, and I suppose this is most most incorrect from your view, but that doesn’t matter to me or to God. However, I am certain that you couldn’t comprehend the way in which I see Him. In your opinion you have the right view. In my opinion your view will probably do just fine, but to me it is quite sad.

A false dichotomy, a bit of circular logic, and an ad-homenum to finish it off. NIce. So full of love and charitableness.

Its a shame that the post-modern mind has fallen so far that in order for something to be beautiful it must be void of order or ritual. That obedience to God’s order-which is true and objective reality-and adhering to an order of worship which God ordained must only be done out of fear and not out of love. This is a very low notion not only of religion but of God.

God loves you? OK, God loves everyone. If God didn’t love everyone no one would exist. Can we get beyond this simplistic religious subjectivism? Truth does not depend on, or is not made up of, our feelings.

Outside of how merely how you feel, how do you know what “proper” love of God is?

 

[mflorence]

I understand your absurd point. Hence I simplified it even more.

Lanes are not roads. Lanes are divisions of roads. “Boston” would be truth, “away from Boston” would be falsehood.

Your point might be valid if your “perspective” presupposes that driving on the wrong side of the road is the same as driving on the right side of the road. Not only are you breaking the law, you are also greatly increasing your chances of colliding head-on with another vehicle. Roads, while having two opposing lanes, essentially lead towards or away from a place, or in these terms a state of being.

“Perspective” becomes irrelevant when, because you thought you could drive the wrong way in the wrong lane, your brains are mush from hitting a Semi head-on.

You are still missing the point. My sense is that you are a very bright person, but you are not getting any of this. It’s like you are sleep walking and it’s scary to watch. For instance, you always throw in terms like “your point is absurd.” You do realize that this is mean-spirited don’t you? You also do realize that how you treat me, even if I am the least among people, you have treated Him in kind? You are admittedly an expert part and parcel on church law, doctrines and probably scripture as well. Your treatment of others suggests that in spite of all that you have missed the point. What a waste of effort to learn all of that just to spend your time fusing and flapping angrily around a website only to show that even a vast accumulation of knowledge can be accompanied by a profound lack of wisdom or grace. What is your purpose? To aggrandize yourself by showing everyone how smart you are at the cost of being an embarrassment to your church to those of us outside of it? Or do you think you are serving God or the Catholic Church in some way by representing your faith in such a way as to make it look repulsive to others through your arrogant behavior? Tell me, what is your purpose? My wife is Catholic, and I was raised in that church. Because of that I have a lot of dear friends who are Catholic priests and nuns, and if I didn’t know them before I encountered you, I would have a very bad impression of your church. Don’t worry about me showing them any of the things you’ve written. I thought about it, but they are loyal and devoted servants of God, and although their path is different than mine, I wouldn’t want to embarrass them in any way. By the way - they respect my path of faith oddly enough, whereas I suspect you don’t. I hope that at some point you will learn some humility and perhaps a little simplicity and love. I am very much concerned that you are going to miss the very thing you are living for.

God bless you GreyPilgrim, and I hope you find some peace at some point.

 

[Nicea325]

You are still missing the point. My sense is that you are a very bright person, but you are not getting any of this. It’s like you are sleep walking and it’s scary to watch. For instance, you always throw in terms like “your point is absurd.” You do realize that this is mean-spirited don’t you? You also do realize that how you treat me, even if I am the least among people, you have treated Him in kind? You are admittedly an expert part and parcel on church law, doctrines and probably scripture as well. Your treatment of others suggests that in spite of all that you have missed the point. What a waste of effort to learn all of that just to spend your time fusing and flapping angrily around a website only to show that even a vast accumulation of knowledge can be accompanied by a profound lack of wisdom or grace. What is your purpose? To aggrandize yourself by showing everyone how smart you are at the cost of being an embarrassment to your church to those of those of us outside of it? Or do you think you are serving God or the Catholic Church in some way by representing your faith in such a way as to make it look repulsive to others through your arrogant behavior? Tell me, what is your purpose? My wife is Catholic, and I was raised in that church. Because of that I have a lot of dear friends who are Catholic priests and nuns, and if I didn’t know them before I encountered you, I would have a very bad impression of your church. Don’t worry about me showing them any of the things you’ve written. I thought about it, but they are loyal and devoted servants of God, and although their path is different than mine, I wouldn’t want to embarrass them in any way. By the way - they respect my path of faith oddly enough, whereas I suspect you don’t. I hope that at some point you will learn some humility and perhaps a little simplicity and love. I am very much concerned that you are going to miss the very thing you are living for.

God bless you GreyPilgrim

Are you kidding? You actually have a point? You speak a lot,yet no point is ever reached.

 

[mflorence]

Are you kidding? You actually have a point? You speak a lot,yet no point is ever reached.

Sorry, there is no way to drag me down with the two of you. I will not respond in kind or lack of kindness. The two of you are in an ugly place that I sincerely hope you can pull yourselves out of at some point. I do think you got the point though.

God bless you Nicea325.

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry, there is no way to drag me down with the two of you. I will not respond in kind or lack of kindness. The two of you are in an ugly place that I sincerely hope you can pull yourselves out of at some point.

God bless you Nicea325.

Excuse me! You have said a lot and I have yet to read a single shred of evidence for any of your commentaries. So on the contrary, you are not going to drag us down with your mere assumptions and distortions of history. The only ugliness are those you comment a lot and fail to back it up with empirical evidence. It is called being disingenuous and poor scholarship.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

yet whatever Peter did ,all the other apostles did also ,not to mention consequent believers us.Right ? ALL COMMISSIONS WERE TO THE TWELVE.

The Gospels reveal PETER IS THE ONLY APOSTLE WHO WALKED ON WATER, the first to preach Christ crucified, raised the dead, prophecied about the death of a decieving couple, **healed ]the many with just his shadow, ** PETER IS THE ONLY ONE WHO RECIEVED THE VISION FROM GOD (HEAVEN) TO ALLOW THE GENTILES INTO THE CHURCH and later **spoke in the first church council **in Jerusalem about the gentiles to practice without circumcision and all fell silent, just to mention a few things that Peter did apart from the apostles.

Yet it is true as you stated, All of them are commissioned, that is why the Pope is the Bishop of Rome from his unbroken Apostolic succession.

Peace be with you

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You are still missing the point. My sense is that you are a very bright person, but you are not getting any of this. It’s like you are sleep walking and it’s scary to watch. For instance, you always throw in terms like “your point is absurd.” You do realize that this is mean-spirited don’t you?

So please, explain it to me. Obviously the law of non-contradiction is so complex to one such as me who is so unlearned that I obviously just don’t get it.

Show me how “I accept any faith that doesn’t claim to be the only one” is not a self-refuting statement.

You also do realize that how you treat me, even if I am the least among people, you have treated Him in kind?

Jesus had less patience for those who misled His children than I have had for you. Your subjectivist philosophy is false and inconsistent. That I still am trying to get you to see your error is proof of my soft heart.

You are admittedly an expert part and parcel on church law, doctrines and probably scripture as well. Your treatment of others suggests that in spite of all that you have missed the point. What a waste of effort to learn all of that just to spend your time fusing and flapping angrily around a website only to show that even a vast accumulation of knowledge can be accompanied by a profound lack of wisdom or grace.

I am not an expert on anything. All that I do amounts to just a small pile of straw.

Towards you I have been very charitable. I have not attacked you persoanlly, as you have me. I asked for reasons why you believe what you believe. You don’t give me anything but opinions and feelings: circular logic. You have done nothing to convince me that your position is true.

You assume that I’m angry. Those who are angry often deflect and accuse others of being angry. I have never attack you personally, although you have thrown a couple of ad-homenum attacks my way because simply because I resist your subjectivism. I have refuted your propositions and you don’t like being told that your wrong. That’s fine. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

What is your purpose? To aggrandize yourself by showing everyone how smart you are at the cost of being an embarrassment to your church to those of us outside of it?

Those who have high opinions of themselves when threatened often accuse others of “aggrandizing themselves”. This is proof that you have lost your argument.

My purpose is to stand up for the truth, which philosophies such as yours seek to destroy.

Or do you think you are serving God or the Catholic Church in some way by representing your faith in such a way as to make it look repulsive to others through your arrogant behavior?

I am displaying the logical fallacies of your ideas in a matter of fact way-i.e. an argument. You have done nothing to demonstrate that my arguments are false or fallacious. If demonstration of the truth is arrogant behavior then Jesus was the biggest egoist that ever lived because He claimed to be the Truth personified and more.

And the cure to an addiction often looks repulsive to the addict who is so imbedded in their addiction that they see in the cure only the prospect of future suffering.

Tell me, what is your purpose? My wife is Catholic, and I was raised in that church. Because of that I have a lot of dear friends who are Catholic priests and nuns, and if I didn’t know them before I encountered you, I would have a very bad impression of your church. Don’t worry about me showing them any of the things you’ve written. I thought about it, but they are loyal and devoted servants of God, and although their path is different than mine, I wouldn’t want to embarrass them in any way.[/qoute]

I stated my purpose above.

The corallary being that I am not a devoted servent of God? Another ad-homenum. Graciousness abounds with you, doesn’t it?

I have never attacked you are questioned your sincerety, just your philosophy.

I am not ashamed of standing up for the Truth or the Church because they are one and the same.
mflorence;6978608:

By the way - they respect my path of faith oddly enough, whereas I suspect you don’t. I hope that at some point you will learn some humility and perhaps a little simplicity and love. I am very much concerned that you are going to miss the very thing you are living for.

I’m glad I have you to tell much such things. How very hypocritical and condescending of you.

Doctors can love and respect a person while at the same time hate the cancer that is infecting them and destroying them. I respect persons, I don’t respect falsehoods. If I didn’t respect you or care for you I wouldn’t bother with you. Problem seems to be that you can’t make the distinction between an idea and you. That is the mistake those who are in perpetual sin make-they either can’t or refuse to separate themselves from the sin that enslaves them.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Sorry, there is no way to drag me down with the two of you. I will not respond in kind or lack of kindness. The two of you are in an ugly place that I sincerely hope you can pull yourselves out of at some point. I do think you got the point though.

God bless you Nicea325.

St. Augustine writes in his “Confessions”: "But why doth “truth generate hatred” and the man of thine, preaching the truth, become an enemy to them? Whereas a happy life is loved, which is nothing else but joying in the truth; unless that truth is in that kind loved, that they who love any thing else would gladly have that which they love to be the truth: **and because they would not be deceived, would not be convinced that they are so? **Therefore do they hate the truth for that thing’s sake which they love instead of the truth. They love truth when she enlightens, they hate her when she reproves. For since they would not be deceived, and would deceive, they love her when she discovers herself unto them, and hate her when she discovers them.

 

[mflorence]

Excuse me! You have said a lot and I have yet to read a single shred of evidence for any of your commentaries. So on the contrary, you are not going to drag us down with your mere assumptions and distortions of history. The only ugliness are those you comment a lot and fail to back it up with empirical evidence. It is called being disingenuous and poor scholarship.

Still angry I see.

 

[mflorence]

So please, explain it to me. Obviously the law of non-contradiction is so complex to one such as me who is so unlearned that I obviously just don’t get it.

Show me how “I accept any faith that doesn’t claim to be the only one” is not a self-refuting statement.

Jesus had less patience for those who misled His children than I have had for you. Your subjectivist philosophy is false and inconsistent. That I still am trying to get you to see your error is proof of my soft heart.

I am not an expert on anything. All that I do amounts to just a small pile of straw.

Towards you I have been very charitable. I have not attacked you persoanlly, as you have me. I asked for reasons why you believe what you believe. You don’t give me anything but opinions and feelings: circular logic. You have done nothing to convince me that your position is true.

You assume that I’m angry. Those who are angry often deflect and accuse others of being angry. I have never attack you personally, although you have thrown a couple of ad-homenum attacks my way because simply because I resist your subjectivism. I have refuted your propositions and you don’t like being told that your wrong. That’s fine. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

Those who have high opinions of themselves when threatened often accuse others of “aggrandizing themselves”. This is proof that you have lost your argument.

My purpose is to stand up for the truth, which philosophies such as yours seek to destroy.

I am displaying the logical fallacies of your ideas in a matter of fact way-i.e. an argument. You have done nothing to demonstrate that my arguments are false or fallacious. If demonstration of the truth is arrogant behavior then Jesus was the biggest egoist that ever lived because He claimed to be the Truth personified and more.

And the cure to an addiction often looks repulsive to the addict who is so imbedded in their addiction that they see in the cure only the prospect of future suffering.
mflorence;6978608:

Tell me, what is your purpose? My wife is Catholic, and I was raised in that church. Because of that I have a lot of dear friends who are Catholic priests and nuns, and if I didn’t know them before I encountered you, I would have a very bad impression of your church. Don’t worry about me showing them any of the things you’ve written. I thought about it, but they are loyal and devoted servants of God, and although their path is different than mine, I wouldn’t want to embarrass them in any way.[/qoute]

I stated my purpose above.

The corallary being that I am not a devoted servent of God? Another ad-homenum. Graciousness abounds with you, doesn’t it?

I have never attacked you are questioned your sincerety, just your philosophy.

I am not ashamed of standing up for the Truth or the Church because they are one and the same.

I’m glad I have you to tell much such things. How very hypocritical and condescending of you.

Doctors can love and respect a person while at the same time hate the cancer that is infecting them and destroying them. I respect persons, I don’t respect falsehoods. If I didn’t respect you or care for you I wouldn’t bother with you. Problem seems to be that you can’t make the distinction between an idea and you. That is the mistake those who are in perpetual sin make-they either can’t or refuse to separate themselves from the sin that enslaves them.

You are still missing the point.

Goodbye

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The GreyPilgrim;6978741:

So please, explain it to me. Obviously the law of non-contradiction is so complex to one such as me who is so unlearned that I obviously just don’t get it.

Show me how “I accept any faith that doesn’t claim to be the only one” is not a self-refuting statement.

Jesus had less patience for those who misled His children than I have had for you. Your subjectivist philosophy is false and inconsistent. That I still am trying to get you to see your error is proof of my soft heart.

I am not an expert on anything. All that I do amounts to just a small pile of straw.

Towards you I have been very charitable. I have not attacked you persoanlly, as you have me. I asked for reasons why you believe what you believe. You don’t give me anything but opinions and feelings: circular logic. You have done nothing to convince me that your position is true.

You assume that I’m angry. Those who are angry often deflect and accuse others of being angry. I have never attack you personally, although you have thrown a couple of ad-homenum attacks my way because simply because I resist your subjectivism. I have refuted your propositions and you don’t like being told that your wrong. That’s fine. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

Those who have high opinions of themselves when threatened often accuse others of “aggrandizing themselves”. This is proof that you have lost your argument.

My purpose is to stand up for the truth, which philosophies such as yours seek to destroy.

I am displaying the logical fallacies of your ideas in a matter of fact way-i.e. an argument. You have done nothing to demonstrate that my arguments are false or fallacious. If demonstration of the truth is arrogant behavior then Jesus was the biggest egoist that ever lived because He claimed to be the Truth personified and more.

And the cure to an addiction often looks repulsive to the addict who is so imbedded in their addiction that they see in the cure only the prospect of future suffering.

You are still missing the point.

Goodbye

“Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…”

 

[Dokimas]

In the argument given by some Non Catholic Christians, they state that Peter was called Petros by Jesus and his church was built on Petra (not Peter).

Please see the link for more on this argument.

My question is this: For you Non Catholic Christians that hold this interpretation, who holds the Keys of Heaven if not Peter?

Matthew 16:

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar–Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

Can anyone get to Heaven without knowing Jesus built His church upon Peter?

Can anyone get to Heaven without understanding Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

The foundation Jesus built His church upon is who He is which is the confession of Peter.

As for the keys, where does it say Peter passed on the keys to the CC. We are told by the CC that the CC has them. Don’t the Mormons think they have them?

Re 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”:

My guess is that Jesus has them and He is the only One that can use them with all wisdom, mercy, grace and love.

1 Peter 2:

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,”
8 and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Peter calls Jesus the ‘Petra’.

 

[Dokimas]

Everyone can have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. They are simply the words of Jesus.

Makes sense.

 

[Dokimas]

mflorence;6978851:

“Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…”

How secure is the foundation that says ‘it is so because I (my church) says so’ about itself?

 

[Javl]

To my Protestant Brothers;

Please read and understand.:

***The evangelist Matthew records another metaphor which Jesus used to explain to Simon Peter, and to the other apostles, what he wanted to do with him: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). Here too we immediately note that, according to biblical tradition, the Messiah possesses the keys of the kingdom. The Book of Revelation repeats the expressions of the prophet Isaiah and presents Christ as “the holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open” (Rev 3:7). The text of Isaiah (22:22) which concerns a certain Eliakim was seen as a prophetic expression of the messianic age when the “key” would not be for opening or closing the house of David (as a building or as a dynasty), but for opening the “kingdom of heaven,” this new, transcendent reality proclaimed and ushered in by Jesus.

Jesus is the one who, according to the Letter to the Hebrews, “entered the heavenly sanctuary” (cf. 9:24) through his sacrifice. He possesses its keys and opens its gates. Jesus handed these keys over to Peter, who thus received power over the kingdom, power which he will exercise in Christ’s name, as his steward and the head of the Church, the house which gathers together those who believe in Christ, the children of God.

Jesus indeed said to Peter: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19). This is another simile Jesus used to show his will to confer on Simon Peter a universal and complete power guaranteed and authenticated by heavenly approval. This does not mean only the power to formulate points of doctrine or general norms of action. According to Jesus, it is the power of “binding and loosing,” that is, of doing whatever is necessary for the life and development of the Church. The opposing terms “binding-loosing” serve to show the totality of the power.

It should be immediately added, however, that the aim of this power is to open the entrance to the kingdom, not to close it: “open,” that is, to make it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven and not to place obstacles that would be equivalent to “closing” it. This is the proper purpose of the Petrine ministry, rooted in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ who came to save and to be the gate and shepherd of all in the communion of the one fold (cf. Jn 10:7, 11, 16). Through his sacrifice Christ became “the gate for the sheep,” the symbol of which was that built by Eliashib, the high priest, who with his priestly brothers worked to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century before Christ (cf. Neh 3:1). The Messiah is the true gate of the New Jerusalem built through his blood shed upon the cross. He entrusted the keys of this gate to Peter so that he might be the minister of his saving power in the Church.

This Authority and Power did not cease to be with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles, but was, and is, passed on to their successors by the Holy Spirit by means of the laying on of hands.***

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[mflorence]

mflorence;6978851:

“Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur…”

In this case what was asserted with reason was denied without reason, so there is no point to continue. Anyway, my sources on history are published academic sources, which you probably wouldn’t recognize as having any relevance anyway. Yours were church fathers with a particular agenda (If you have quoted some source other than these, let me know). Aside from that, a scriptural piece here and there, all of which can be viewed in numerous ways each. Their assertions in my view being largely discredited by the outcomes they produced over time. Fortunately this day in age, the rantings of such zealots is confined mostly to websites, where they can’t do as much harm as in the past. A bit annoying but of little harm - innocuous. And yes, you are still missing the point.